As Emperor of the World, I would install a small valve in every 13 year old boy. When he could prove that he was emotionally and financially able to rear a child with a partner equally equipped, I would turn it back on, until said child appeared.

This would make me a monster and solve many of the planet's problems. . .

Conservatives would never allow you to mutilate a child that way. At least not a boy-child.

Now if you wanted to perform a similar surgery on a girl.......

The species needs Y-Chromosomes. If the dudes don't wise up, it won't be long before some folks realize they don't have much use for the rest of the baggage.

DAY -- Why limit it to just boys? Both genders should have control over their fertility. I love the idea of pre-emptively sterilizing both boys and girls at puberty and that the reversal procedure is something that both of them have to affirmatively sign up for, for each child. This way one partner can't "trap" another with a pregnancy (yes, men do it to).

No litmus test for having it happen, no "you have to make this much money to have the reveral procedure." It's not about eugenics, it can just be about making children something that people have to proactively agree to, and not have an "oops, oh well let's try to make the best of this and hope for the best" turnout. It might not eradicate the world's problem, but it would make a big dent in them.

DAY-3905329, an interesting theory. But applying this standard to human beings ("when he could prove that he was emotionally and financially able to rear a child with a partner equally equipped") could lead to the extinction of the species.

Both sides are insane. Santorum's faction secretly wants to ban birth control and turn women into nothing but brood mares, and the nut jobs on the left like the posters above see nothing wrong with grabbing a young person, sexually violating him/her through invasive surgery, and mutilating their reproductive organs for his own good or the "social" good or some other such imaginary benefit.

You are all a bunch of sickos. Get help.

@ket-3454691

Being purposely dense isn't very helpful, the people in this comment thread are pretending to be "benevolent dictators" with no expectation of anything whereas Santorum publicly want to ban contraception.

"the nut jobs on the left like the posters above see nothing wrong with grabbing a young person, sexually violating him/her through invasive surgery, and mutilating their reproductive organs for his own good or the "social" good or some other such imaginary benefit."

So you're talking about circumcision, right? Equating the left and right on this topic is ridiculous.

The comparison I take away is that this is yet another case in which the Republican Party (which claims to support limiting "big government" hands over us all), will drop that viewpoint when it comes to the most personal aspects of our lives.

I was not arguing the validity of it , just the (for the lack of a more proper term) humanity of it.

@Paul:

I'm pretty sure the dead are less concerned with your concern than you are.

Meanwhile, the living would like the Repubs to stop being a-holes.

hoosierprof, just wondering how you can consider saying government does not have the power to tell me, my employer, or our private insurance company that we have to pay for someone else's birth control, to contradict the idea of "limited government," and saying that everyone must buy something, and that every self-insured, every employer, and every insurance company must provide a service to someone else to support the notion of individual freedom.

INTJ: If you really don't get how the Repubs imposing their opinions about contraception on the rest of us isn't a clear example of government over-reach, then you need to stop drinking the koolaid. Furthermore, demanding certain behavior from businesses and insurance companies is not about individual freedom, because those entities aren't individuals.

Seriously, duh.

You should be revolted. That's the point. The Republicans should have been revolted to use Terry Schiavo like that. They weren't and they did. Now they're hoping to practically rape women for votes (see Virginia's new ultrasound procedure). You should be revolted out of your mind.

Exactly. In both cases, cynical manipulation of the most difficult decisions—literally life and death—for political purposes.

BTW, a recent poll, CNN, think, showed Romney beating Santorum by 9 points among Repub women. My initial reaction was, "That's all?" But then I realized that Romney keeps tacking right to catch up with Santorum, so there's supposedly no difference between them on women's issues. But no difference would mean a probable tie, implying the 9 point spread is because those who prefer Romney really don't believe his anti-choice anti-women's health positions, anyway!

Oral sex,Oral sex that is the answer to this!

Paul, Paul. Hold on a minute. Did you check with Santorum on this? I'll bet his belief is that a girl can get pregnant having oral sex. Either variety.

How can you have a committee on women's health issues and not have 1 woman on the panel and tel the Democrats that they can not have their one witness who happens to be a woman. Good Old Boy politics at its finest.

I think the Republicans would bar Jesus and God from their panel inquiries if it was hinted that God and Jesus would side with women on this issue.

You may be right. In the floating pericope of the woman (but not the man) taken in adultery, Jesus ignores the woman's accusers to doodle in the dirt until they drift away in likely embarrassment (maybe he was writing the names of their mistresses). Finally looking up, Jesus asks her who accuses her. She answers that no one does. Then, Jesus replies, neither do I.

The issue is not preventing access to contraception. The issue is forcing one group of citizens to purchase services (whether they support those services or not) for another group of citizens. That is not freedom.

6.1 Oh get over it. Put out the money and just shut-up! We put out money for the common good all the time. Contraception is for the common good. Republicans are such damn tight wads. They are so worried someone may benefit from something. They forget that they are part of a community of fellow citizens. The Republicans disgust me.

When ever will the right stop pushing this ridiculous "why should I have to pay for you ... that violates my freedom" crap? Seriously. You live in a (somewhat) civilized society and there have long been trade-offs for that privilege.

Freedom IS freedom from want. Freedom IS freedom from suffering. Freedom IS freedom from the selfish indulgences of those who believe they are separate forcing YOU to live by THEIR standards. Freedom IS freedom for people who believe the only good taxes are the ones that go to stuff they like.

If you truly, truly believe that no one should have to pay for any of the benefits of the society that benefit YOU ... try setting up shop in an isolated corner of the country, with your own generator ... no wait, you'd need gas for that and other people's taxes pay for the infrastructure to get the gas to you ... okay, get some cows and use their offal to make your own energy. Grown your own food. Never, ever again go anywhere NEAR a grocery store. Don't ever buy a book. Never ask the police to help you when cattle rustlers come by or the firehouse to send a truck when your cooking fire gets out of hand.

The number of ways in which you benefit from the pooling of the purchasing power of the group in which you reside is staggering in it's scope. You don't like it? Buy yourself an island and get to it.

C-street pushed them into this. After all if they refused then C-street would have stopped providing co-eds for them at "the house"

Well said 80s girl.

"INTJ-855166 says: The issue is not preventing access to contraception. The issue is forcing one group of citizens to purchase services (whether they support those services or not) for another group of citizens. That is not freedom."

Okay. Using your logic, I do not want my tax money going to fight wars. I am forced to purchase defense materials through taxation to fight these wars even though I am against them. That is not freedom.

Exactly right.

Freedom IS freedom *for* people who believe the only good taxes are the ones that go to stuff they like.

Dang typos ... that should be *from*

That is not freedom.

It is too. I don't like my tax money going to certain things either but we live in a collective. The collective works for the good of the entire country not just select groups. I like to think about a human body each cell working to the benefit of the whole. If one cell goes bad it can infect the entire being just like the corrupt greed of the Republican Party is doing to the country.

I would add that all insurance is based on pooled risk. That's right, shared risk. My premiums today are paying for payouts to other people! People I don't even know!

Oh, the horror!

I, for one, was pretty disturbed that the medical profession had suddenly started considering food and water to be "extreme medical measures" to keep someone alive.

The part INTJ left off:

"...even though she was already dead."

Get over it, you neanderthal. It was a disgusting display for jerks like you to insert yourselves into a private family affair that was none of your business.

So it was NEWSCASTERS who caused George W. Bush to fly back to Washington DC in his jammies from Crawford, Texas after the GOP voted on a Terri Schiavo bill in the middle of the night? Seriously?

I don't recall the newscasters having that kind of influence on W, and neither does anyone else.

I think you'd better go back and check your facts and then check your opinion. Because the former contradicts the latter.

Terri had parents and siblings who were willing and capable of providing care for her, and were eager to do so. Her jerk husband wanted her dead. In the absence of a written living will, society should have been on the side of life. Especially if care was an option for her, which it was. If you believe she was already dead, as some of you have suggested, then she would have been oblivious either way, so if providing her care offers some comfort to the living, then what is the harm? The court gave the husband the power to sentence her to death. Death row inmates are shown more compassion than what was offered to Terri. She was essentially starved and dehydrated to death. If you're ok with this then why stop with her? There are thousands of Alzheimer patients clueless about their surroundings that you could start purging.

10.4: Terri Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state, there was no hope of recovery and her "jerk" husband stood by her for 8 years before coming to the conclusion that she was gone. Her autopsy showed that clearly, her brain was half the size it should've been, and all major brain areas were dead. There was NO chance of recovery.

Her family didn't want to let her go. I don't blame them for that either but they were the ones being selfish. Saying goodbye to a loved one is agony. But, why did these good christians want to keep her tethered to a body that was an empty, useless shell? Why keep her soul stuck in this realm and away from god? They fought over her like dogs over a bone for 15 years and she didn't improve ONE iota in all that time. But, he's the jerk for wanting to let her go.

As for the implication that he wanted her dead so he could have a girlfriend, according the early reports, HER family encouraged him to date.

My mother went into a coma after her operation to remove various organs riddled with cancer. After the insurance company made her wait six months after a botched operation at another hospital, by the way, giving the cancer they kept saying she did not have a chance to gain a real foothold. I was the one who had to decide to end her life support so believe me, it's not a decision you take lightly. And that decision, I believe, has to be couched in terms of what that person on life support wants, that's my two cents. My mother didn't leave a living will, she fully expected to recover and get on with her life. She, too, had no brain functions, every system in her body was trying to shut down despite all efforts of doctors to keep her going; I was told they could keep her alive artificially indefinitely. I made a choice, my dad couldn't deal with it, so I made it. You don't know what you're going to do until you're faced with it. I wanted so badly for her to magically wake up! I still do.

As for this whole religion versus the big bad government debate...come on, of course it's about women and their access to safe, effective birth control. Religious freedom? Women getting stuff for free? People having sex??? Holy assclowns in a VW bug!! And like a gazillion others have pointed out-- why does it seem this is a men-only issue at the Congressional level? Where are the female religious leaders? I know there are women pastors...or is it assumed that this crossing of religious and secular lines at the insurance level remains only a Catholic thing?

10.5. Maybe her family did encourage him to date, I don't know. But that is a little different than, "go ahead and date, and while you're at it go ahead and kill Terri."

Don't you get it? This wasn't a matter of pulling the plug on a life support machine, as I suspect was the case for Malheurrivergirl's mother (if wrong I apologize Rivergirl). If you need a machine to keep you "alive", then I can see the argument for "letting her go", as you put it. Terri didn't need a machine, she needed food and water and people willing to feed her (which she had). Terri endured withholding of food & water for an extended period (about 2 weeks) until she died. A lot of people were very thankful that her autopsy showed a withered brain, because they could make the argument, "see, she was a vegetable and basically dead". Nobody knows but Terri and God.

I have a 5 year old daughter who has both physical and neurological issues, and has had since birth. She can't talk, walk, or care for herself. She does not need a machine to live, but would surely die if her mom and I didn't feed and care for her because she can't do this herself, and is unlikely ever to be able to do so. We will happily care for her until our dying day. I am concerned that when we are gone she will be left in the care of a society that turned it's back on Terri. People like you may not want to "keep her soul stuck in this realm and away from God", and decide to starve her.

So, husband=jerk for "wanting to let her go", or more accurately, starved and dehydrated her until death, preventing her parents from even dabbing her cracked lips with a wet washcloth near the end. You blame her parents, the "good Christians", for wanting to keep her "tethered to a useless body"? I guess you can cast a similar blame on me with regards to my daughter.

Libs, I am truly sorry that your daughter has to face these issues as I can only imagine how heartbreaking it must be for you. I don't blame you for wanting to keep your daughter with you at all. As I said, I don't blame them for wanting to keep Terri with them, but, if you ever did come to the heartbreaking, gut-wrenching decision to allow her to die (which I'm not saying you should or will want to) don't you believe that should be YOUR decision? Terri was married when this all happened. She was a grown woman with a life and a husband that she entrusted with decision-making capabilities. The courts agreed. She wasn't a child. Her parents were no longer in charge. Her husband and legal guardian understood things about his wife's wishes that her parents maybe/likely did not. That doesn't make him a monster. My mother-in-law had multiple strokes and at the end, was in a vegetative state. She was gone. Her husband, not her children, made the decision to let her go. She went into hospice and was, like Terri, "starved and dehydrated" until she died. Just so you understand, this was a VERY Catholic woman (a founder of a pro-life organization) as was her husband. It was not a decision made lightly.

You have control over what happens to your daughter, and rightfully so. Michael Schiavo had control over what happened to his wife, knowing her wishes as he did. You don't have to like his choice, but you are allowed to make your choices and he was allowed to make his. We all do, in the name of love, what we think is best for our loved ones.

No one has the right to judge. NO ONE. Not even someone who is going through something as hard as what you are going through.

As you can see, a lot of the people on this blog have had to make very difficult life and death decisions. And I'm one of them. I find it offensive that you would dare judge the decision I make, or the decision that anyone else makes, especially when there's no way you could possibly know everything about my situation or theirs.

We all have deeply held feelings, and you have yours. Fine. But what I find doubly offensive is when a bunch of cynical self-righteous strangers miles away butt in for the sake of political advantage, tormenting a family they don't even know. That's not just offensive - it's despicable.

80sgirl -- thanks for the kind words. I am curious, did your mother-in-law's family, other than her husband, agree with the decision? While there are some similarities to hers and Terri's situation, I believe there are some differences as well. I don't believe it was well established what Terri's wishes were. She did not have a living will, and the rest of the family disputed what her husband claimed. When in doubt, I would argue for the side of life, which in this case was her parents side. You say your mother-in-law "entrusted with decision-making capabilities" her husband. Was this in the form of a will or living will, or some other legal documentation clearly establishing her wishes, or was it all word of mouth? If word of mouth, was there any dispute from family members as in the Schiavo case?

In closing, this is a decision that I never want to have to make, but in Terri's case it seemed callous, cold-hearted, unnecessary, and immoral. Personally, if I truly believed she was completely gone (mentally) and had absolutely no self awareness, then I don't see the harm in letting her parents care for her if that would bring them (the living) comfort. Why push so hard to kill the corpse of someone you think is already dead? At that point it is more about you than her.

The family was not in totally agreement (it's a big family) but the only real voices of dispute were the 3 "black sheep" of the family; an atheist, a homosexual and a drug addict. Seriously, not a lead-in to a joke. My husband's devout Catholic sister was supportive of her father, the rest were just heartbroken. My husband, the baby of the family, sat with her everyday and the total agony of it was heartbreaking to witness.

It was my sense that they were holding out hope that she would snap-out of it in time for them to make peace within the family, to have their mother welcome them back into the fold. I heard them day after day (we were there over a week) talking to her and telling her that "when you wake up we can ... ". At the risk of sounding self-aggrandizing, I finally had enough and sat them down and told them that enough was enough. She's never coming back but her love for them was keeping her in limbo. She's still their mother after all. I begged them to let her know it was okay to rest. It was okay to let go; as I had with my own father 6 months before. It took time and lots of tears but they finally did. She died the next day.

Now, I realize that's as much an argument about keeping her alive as it is about letting her go but the point is, each family has to deal with an inevitable loss in the way that is best for the person whom they must let go.

Of course no one wants to ever have to make that choice. Nor, in a perfect world, should anyone have to but hard times come to us all. At some point, the living have to be the ones to be brave and selfless. They have to be the ones to say, it's okay to rest. It's okay to let go. With all due respect, and I truly mean that, I believe that the opposite of your statement is true: keeping the corpse of someone you believe to be dead alive is more about you than about them. And I suspect that should the time come, you would make the brave choice and allow your child peace and rest. Not keep her body alive just to give yourself comfort.

But even if you didn't, it's still your choice. If my father-in-law had made a different decision, we'd probably still be visiting my all-intents-and-purposes dead mother-in-law and I'd have to watch my husband die a little each time.

That's no way for anyone to live ... or die.

@80sGirl - Thanks for having more stamina and for explaining better than I the terrible decisions. There are words in your post that resonate with me: "it's OK to let go," "no way for anyone to live." Ultimately, though, whether you believe in G-d's plan or not, "Life is for the living."

I was in the hospital, they said, "What do you want to do?" I said, "There are no good decisions." They nodded, but allowed the decision to be mine.

The rest of you, don't even have the nerve to voice an opinion about my personal decision, or anybody else's, until you've been there.

Why push so hard to kill the corpse of someone you think is already dead? At that point it is more about you than her.

I disagree. Let him/her go. Until you've been in that room, you can't understand that nobody would want to "live" that way.

80sGirl -- I appreciate your story and I'm sorry for your family's loss. Still, the situation appears considerably different given that it was a relatively short term duration as opposed to Terri's years-long condition. We all saw the videos her parents made available to the media. While very sad it did not appear she was "brain dead".

George, I don't have to be in that room to understand that nobody would want to live that way. Who would? I also know that everyone would prefer to live a "normal" life rather than live like my daughter, or a severely autistic person, or an elderly person with end-stage Alzheimer's, or a whole host of other conditions.

Yet live these people do, and how we treat them is a moral measure of our society. I am not passing judgment on either of your situations. I'm sure you handled them appropriately as you saw fit. However, I feel I can comment on Terri's case since it was widely reported on for weeks as it was happening. Anyone who was paying attention knows the facts. At the time she was killed nobody knew whether or not she had any cognitive ability or self awareness since the courts did not order a PET scan. Michael refused to get one because he was afraid the results would undermine his effort to end her life. Her parents certainly believed they could communicate with her, at least on some rudimentary level. As far as anyone knew she had very much in common with a severely autistic adult, yet her husband was allowed to kill her based on based on a casual conversation that Terri had with her husband that only he could attest to. There were no written instructions from Terri directing that her feeding tube be withdrawn if she were to become mentally incapacitated. We do not allow oral instructions issued in casual conversation to govern the distribution of the property of the deceased, absent a written will. Why would we allow the same kind of casually issued instructions to be used as the basis for a decision to end someone’s life? Yet the courts refused to act in this case and Terri was allowed to be killed, even though her supposed wishes were contested, her medical condition was unproven, and she had loved ones wishing to continue to care for her as they had for years. This is called non-voluntary euthanasia. Michael Schiavo wanted her dead because her living was inconvenient for him.

It is certainly reasonable that large numbers of people would be outraged by this, just as it may also be true that large numbers would see greater compassion in "releasing" people like Terri from the burden of their existence. But that is the slippery slope my friends.

It is late. I'm exhausted. Thanks for a stimulating and thought provoking debate. Good night!

I'm glad to see you considered it thought-provoking and yet it appears you won't even try to see past your own judgment on this case. You're still basing your opinion about how horrible it was because of personal judgments on facts you can't POSSIBLY know like Michael Schiavo's motivation.

In your own words, "it appears" she wasn't brain-dead. From what I read, they filmed hours of tape and edited it to show exactly what they were looking for. As for how willing they were to care for her, they took Terri home in those first few months in 1990 but ended up bringing her back to the hospital because it was too much for them to provide care for her.

If her being alive was inconvenient for her husband, why did he wait EIGHT years before even trying to start the process to end her life? Why didn't he just wash his hands of it and hand her over? The money her parents say he was after was in a trust fund for her care so it's not like he was able to spend it himself. Just maybe he fought so hard because he knew it was what Terri would have wanted. Again, you're judging a situation that you know nothing about. Just because your situation is similar doesn't mean the media gave you all the pertinent information. Or even knew the pertinent information. Just because her parents believed they could communicate with her on some rudimentary level isn't compelling evidence of anything other than their desire to not come to terms with her death.

You criticize the "casual" conversation but yet again, you weren't there. Michael's brother and sister-in-law also heard her thoughts on the subject, why is their take on it of less value than yours?

As for the living will, if someone dies without a will, you're right, their property wouldn't be distributed based on a casual conversation ALONE. It would go before a judge who would listen to all sides and make a determination in law, not emotion. Which is exactly what happened in Terri Schiavo's case ... for 7 years. The courts acted for 7 years; they just didn't decide to do what the family demanded. That's not the same thing as doing nothing.

If the courts had ordered a PET scan, it wouldn't have mattered how much Michael objected. They didn't order one probably because there was no need. Medical professionals testified as to her condition. Unless you want to call them lying killers who found Terri's living to be inconvenient as well.

My apologies for getting harsh, but the refusal of people to even try to see the other side is not compassion, it's not respect for life. It's a selfish need to control other people's lives on the off-chance that that will somehow guarantee control over their own destiny.

Also, it's not even close to being a slippery slope. That's a favourite label for those opposed to some scary thing, but it hardly ever actually turns out to be true. How many spouses have been killed while having a long nap because Terri was allowed to die? Yes, that's an exaggeration but I'm making a point.

I can't judge Terri's parents either but having experienced the loss of many loved ones in my life (my mother died when I was 16, my father when I was 35, my mother-in-law 6 months later, one of my dearest life-long friends just last year at 45) so I do have some up-close idea of what grief looks like. The Schindlers couldn't accept that their beautiful daughter was taken from them in an instant. No chance to say goodbye, no chance to soothe her or make her not afraid. They weren't fighting to keep her alive because they thought it best, they were fighting to keep her alive so they could defeat death itself.

Here's another question that just occurred to me: if Terri HAD been able to make her opinion known, absent a living will, that she did not wish to continue to "live", that she wished for what would be considered an "assisted suicide"... would you have respect for that? Would her parents have respected that?

There is a fairly well-known case in Canada about that very topic. A woman diagnosed with ALS wanted the right to end her life. She took the case all the way to the Supreme Court and lost. She was fought along the way by well-meaning persons who felt that "all life is precious". She ended up taking her own life with the help of an anonymous doctor in 1994.

I'm just curious how you feel about that.

I've been thinking about that kind of thing recently. Why isn't relevant. But if I were faced, say, with certain death, and it was a choice between a slow, lingering, painful death, and a quick and painless death, I'd go with the latter. If I were already dying and the only choice was in letting the process play out or going on my own terms with as much dignity as possible, I'd go with the latter. Other people may make a different choice, but life by itself is meaningless. If it has no dignity and purpose, it's not life.

I suppose one thing that formed my perspective on this was my great-grandmother Josie, who was born in 1873 and died in 1984. Her last years were an unbearable torment simply because of her extreme age and the clarity of her mind. She wished to die and, of course, thoughtless relatives casually batted her feelings aside. But what did she have to live for? She was in constant pain, could not get out of bed on her own, and most of her children had already died of old age. She had already lived her life, there was nothing more for her to do or to look forward to, so why needlessly prolong it? Similarly, Josie's youngest daughter, Hazel, also lived more than a century. She remained in reasonably good health until she just stopped eating. Didn't feel hungry, she said. Again, thoughtless relatives kept pestering her to eat, and my feeling was that if she saw no reason to eat, let her do as she pleased. Again, she'd already lived her life. She died shortly thereafter, with far more dignity that her mother was allowed, so I think she made the right choice.

People who describe themselves as "pro-life" are nothing of the sort. They only care about babies before they are born, and they are intent on needlessly prolonging the agonies of people who's lives are already finished. "Pro-life" people are really just morbidly afraid of death, and they are willing to force any amount of indignity on others in order to save themselves from facing the ultimate reality. They should not be allowed to have their way.

80sGirl -- Arrgh. Long post yesterday accidentally deleted before I got it finished. Stupid thumbs...damn!

I'll answer your last post first: I live in Oregon so I know a bit about assisted suicide. It is not a choice I would make. As a Christian I have serious concerns that the act of suicide jeopardizes a persons soul. However, if someone is dead set on doing it then that is their choice. Criminalizing suicide is stupid. My view on this is that "assisted suicide" should not be taxpayer funded and doctors should not be compelled to provide this "service" if they don't agree with it. There should also be safeguards to prevent abuse. That said, if Terri made these wishes clear then so be it. I have no idea whether her parents would have respected it.

First post had a lot of points, here goes:

1) I have an opinion on the matter, as do you. As much as I question Michael's motives and actions you seem to believe he acted in a purely altruistic way. You are just as intractable on this point as I am, but I can admit it. I have read accounts of Michael's contradictory statements and testimony from others involved that do not paint a very nice picture of that man. Are these to be completely discounted?

2) I would expect that the Schindler's used the best possible video footage to advance their case, which is perfectly understandable.

3) Michael did not wait 8 yrs before trying to end her life. In 1993 he ordered that a staff infection that Terri had, not be treated. The nursing home where she was in treated it anyway. He then placed a "do not resuscitate" order on her chart, but the legality of it was challenged by the nursing home and he backed off. All of this was shortly after he won a sizable malpractice lawsuit against Terri's doctors, in which he made no mention of his wife’s alleged wish to die and conversely pleaded for the opportunity to personally take care of his wife at home for the rest of his life. He sought $20 million to cover the cost of her future medical and neurological care, estimating her life expectancy was 50 years. It wasn't until years later that he started mentioning Terri's supposed statements about not wanting to be kept alive artificially. His ex-girlfriend (after Terri) has stated that he specifically told her that he and Terri never discussed this type of situation. Doesn't this give you even the slightest doubt about Michael's honesty and motivation? Maybe he remembered Terri's statement after he started having kids with another woman, I don't know (I do know that I'll be criticized for this statement).

4) Yes, I know what the media tells me and what I find out on my own. Given your comments I suspect you get most of your information from liberal sites like Maddow's. Guess what, left wing sites are slanted to the left and right wing sites are slanted to the right. Go figure. I try to read both before I spout off too much. Try www.realclearpolitics.com for a nice clearinghouse of articles from both the left and the right perspectives. That's where I found this article.

5) I would not say my situation is similar at all. My daughter is developmentally disabled, not brain dead. She is a child and has never been able to make decisions for herself. I will care for her as long as I am able, and will then make sure she has care after I am gone, God willing.

6) Michael's brother and sister-in-law's comments are certainly more valid mine. I wasn't there and didn't claim to be. But did you entirely discount the testimony of Terri's family and friends who claimed she either made different statements on the subject or that her supposed statement (according to Michael) was contrary to her Catholic beliefs? If you were a judge would you be sure enough of Michael's argument's validity to allow Terri to die?

7) Both sides had doctors testifying that she either was or was not in a persistent vegetative state (PVS). You make no mention of this, but only seem to find validity in Michael's experts. A PET scan would have lent credibility to Michael's doctors, but the court did not order one. It is a simple test, but instead they ruled in favor of Michael without exhausting available tests to help determine the matter conclusively. According to testimony, PVS is mis-diagnosed 40-60% of the time. My point is that you and others argue that this was somehow a slam dunk case for Michael. I don't think it was, and I think the courts, and society, failed to protect Terri given the hotly contested nature of her condition and wishes. My opinion, which I'm entitled to.

8) Your statement about controlling other peoples lives is odd. Michael exercised ultimate control over someone by ending a life. The politicians which you and other liberals vehemently disagreed with were attempting to prevent someone from exercising that control over another human being. Who is being more selfish? Same for the contraceptive argument, which is what this article was supposed to be about. Liberals claim Republicans are trying to deny women healthcare services, or worse. That is dishonest at best, an outright lie at worst. The contraceptive services are readily available. We just don't want to be compelled to pay to provide services to others that we disagree with on religious or moral grounds. Get them yourself. We are not trying to exercise control over you. Quite the opposite. You want to compel those who disagree with you to pony up and pay for things you want. Who is trying to control other peoples lives, as you say? Be honest.

9) It is a slippery slope. Hello, remember the Nazis? It wasn't too long ago that to be an invalid in Germany was very unhealthy. Started out as an "altruistic" and "compassionate" ending of lives that "weren't worth living". It steamrolled, and good people in Germany never saw it coming until it was too late. And yes, your example was way over the top.

10) I too know what grief looks like. Earlier you accused me of drawing conclusions based on facts I couldn't know, such as Michael's motivations. You seem to have pretty concrete conclusions of Terri's parents motivations. Are you privy to some all-knowing source of information that I am not? We draw our conclusions based on our available information. We owe it to ourselves and each other to educate ourselves as much as possible, research alternative viewpoints, then draw our conclusions. I try but I can't claim I've always done this. Getting better, though.

In closing: I don't think you are a bad person because you disagree with me, and hopefully you feel the same towards me.

First, no, I don't think you're a bad person!

Second, I have the nastiest flu bug ever to visit mankind so need to keep this short ... naptime coming up soon.

The most important point I need to make is this: at no point did I claim that Michael was being purely altruistic. The point I was trying to make, which I seem to have made poorly, is that it's not possible to judge because we weren't there. My points about his motivations and the parents motivation were simply stated to give you an alternate view. Your statements on his guilt and/or motivations seemed to be quite conclusive whereas I tried ... maybe not hard enough ... to say "he MAY" or "they PROBABLY". I never once said or even hinted (I don't believe) that I thought Micheal's case was a "slam dunk". The exception being my belief that her parents fought to keep her body alive to avoid dealing with her death ... that I believe having seen others fight that same battle.

For the record, much of my information on the case came from reading a legal review from a law school that did a study of the case. I read media reports as well and also looked at the website that Terri's family started.

As for the contraception argument, I do tire of listening to people on the right complaining about having to pay for other people's "lifestyle" choices. It's rather silly in a society to expect that YOUR particular morals are more important than another's, which is exactly what you mean when you demand that your tax dollars not go to something you object to. We all pay into a general fund that goes to all kinds of things that benefit the society as a whole and even to things with which we disagree. That is honest. The fact that you disagree with women having access to affordable birth control isn't reason enough to deny it's coverage. Talk about a slippery slope. What happens when my boss decides that because my husband and I got married with the understanding that we would NEVER have children means that we are in a pointless union and my husband shall now be denied my healthcare coverage ... because my boss finds my disinclination to have babies objectionable? Religion has ZERO place in politics or political policy. The general welfare should be what's important.

The GOP is attacking women, you can choose to colour it in ways that make it palatable but when they attack an organization that millions of women depend on and then try to make birth control hard to come by ... didn't we have this battle 50 years ago?

At any rate, my body needs rest. Suffice to say, I'm not defending Michael Schiavo nor am I trying to vilify her parents. There was something else I wanted to say but my brain is tired and it's gone ... we shall agree to disagree.

As a Christian I have serious concerns that the act of suicide jeopardizes a persons soul.

I have a hard time navigating from the start of that sentence to its ending. Here's the problem:

JRR Tolkien was a Christian and a Catholic. In the mythology he created, he posited that humans were created mortal. In contrast to the elves, who were made to be immortal within the limits of the created universe, it was the intention of Iluvatar (God) from before the beginning that humans would have more-limited lives in the universe before passing out of it to an unrevealed destiny beyond.

Prior to the interventions of Morgoth (Satan) in their fate, humans had the capacity to chose the time of their deaths. This power was restored for a time to the kings of Numenor who, when they felt they had lived their lives to their fullest, would clear up their affairs, lie down on their funeral biers, and simply will themselves to pass from life. For Tolkien, at least in his invented mythology, the curse of death is not that death occurs, but that death is so difficult and contrary to our wills.

Voluntarily letting go of life is not quite the same as suicide, but it does seem that as a Christian, Tolkien saw good in the notion of a freely-chosen time of death. I don't know what Tolkien's precise views on suicide as such were, but it does seem that he a place for death in his notion of free will. Therefore, it's not really possible to start from Christianity and end up at just one specific view on the subject of suicide (or any other subject, for that matter).

80sGirl -- Fair enough, we shall continue to disagree. Reasonable people can disagree without being disagreeable. Hope you get to feeling better soon.

Monk -- Christian views on suicide range from "unpardonable sin" to a really bad idea, but not necessarily soul-damning. You can find Christian "scholars" for either viewpoint. Notice that I said "i have serious concerns", rather than "you will go to Hell if you commit suicide". I don't know for sure if you will or won't. I just prefer not to take the risk. As for Tolkien, great writer, but not all the elements in his mythology have parallels in Christianity.

but not all the elements in his mythology have parallels in Christianity.

Make that "none" rather than "not all". Because Tolkien put his stories in the far-distant past of the real world, he was careful to keep any explicitly Christian themes out of them. But he could hardly help putting himself in his stories, and it's striking that as a Catholic he imagined that voluntarily letting go of life could be a desirable thing.

Let's play the "name game" using your post . . .

RE: Reverend Wright's racist, anti-American, black nationalist comments. Obama was forced to say, "I'm not responsible for the comments of my pastor. (I never even heard them. I was never there. The dog ate my homework!)" Well no, Barack, you're not responsible (no kidding!). But certainly you can understand that your pastor's comments reflect the "values" you hold. Otherwise, you wouldn't have him as your pastor!

Interesting how that works. Even more interesting that the Leftist media made the exact opposite argument for Obama of his pastor - when they were not ignoring the story - vs. Santorum and his supporter.

So riddle me this: Which relationship is more reflective of the man - a political support or a pastor purported to be your spiritual guide and moral mentor?

Inquiring minds would like to know.

Okay, you raise a fair question. The comparison is only somewhat similar though. First, Reverend Wright's so-called "God damn America" comments were made on September 16, 2001 - long before Obama even considered running for President. Freiss's comments are smack dab in the middle of Santourm's candidacy. Second, Wright was not then nor was he ever the primary financier of Obama's campaign. Third, Wright was not only a pastor; he was a Marine whose service to the country is lesser known than the speech, but much more important. Fourth, the speech, while clearly inflammatory in its flavor, was taken very much out of context. For a more accurate take see: http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/21/the-full-story-behind-rev-jeremiah-wrights-911-sermon/

I'm not saying the situations are completely different. In each case, the candidate was in a position of association with someone whose comments reflected negatively. But I do think there is a major difference between a political supporter's comments during a campaign and comments made by a pastor many years before (and therefore completely unrelated to) a campaign. So to answer your riddle, the political supporter's comments are much more reflective of the man in this comparison.

Except that Foster Friess isn't Santorum's minister and Rev. Wright wasn't handing out million dollar checks. Bit of a difference.

Well I appreciate your reply; however, no surprise - I still think you're wrong.

It's not only Wright - whom Obama had as a pastor for 20 years. It's the, what I would consider, other unsavory characters, revolutionaries really, that paint a comprehensive picture of Obama and his belief system. It's Frank Marshall Davis, it's Bill Ayers, it's Bernadine Dohrn, and who knows who else - these are some bad guys. All friends of Barack.

If we are known by the company we keep, I think that speaks volumes about Obama. And I would argue his ideology as practiced by his (misguided) policies and agenda to "fundamentally transform" reflect the radical revolutionary background of his associates.

On the other hand, if your look up background on Friess on Wikipedia, he has done a lot of good humanitarian work - much more proactive, concrete and impactful (in a good way) than anything Obama and his buds have done.

So, no, I disagree. But I enjoy the debate.

Debate enjoyed here as well. There is always plenty of ammunition for both sides, no doubt. Some on my side would point to associations between the Bush and bin Laden families, but I've never really looked into that so I won't take it as Gospel.

I do think you take a less-than-realistic view of Obama's intentions. I think history will show that he was in fact very centrist in both his rhetoric and his policies. But time will bear that out much better than I can. Thanks for sparring respectfully.

And I find it amazing that you think the ones saying government has no business telling people what they have to do are the ones saying "do it my way," and the ones saying what we must buy, and what we must provide to others at no cost, are the ones who are "staying out of (our) life."

INTJ - have you forgotten how many Republicans, including Newt and Mitt, have supported the individual mandate? Are you not aware that the Affordable Care Act is largely based on ideas that were originally presented by the GOP and that the committee that produced the Act adopted no less than 73 GOP provisions, without argument? Yet you and all the right-wingers would have people believe that Obama shoved it down everyone's throat over GOP objections and against the will of the people.

12.1 Will you please quit whining. Get off your Johnny-one-note. God forbid the Republicans do something for the good of all. Anything to better the country goes against their grain. It's all about money, money, money.

I came to this conclusion long ago - Republicans want everything Democrats want. They just don't want to pay for it.

Healthcare coverage is compensation earned by the employee. It isn't some gratuitous handout by the employer.

We really need to excise employers from the business of providing healthcare coverage. Any rational employer would be behind that.

Here's a big surprise for you - lots of Catholics are women. Thanks Obama for making it easier to get rid of you.

And most of those Catholic women use CONTRACEPTION!

RRDRRD,

Here's a big surprise for you - lots of Catholics are women.

Here's a surprise for you: polls show virtually no change in Obama's support among Catholics. You lose.

No you do. Catholic women voted for Obama by a majority last time so no change is a good thing! You lose.

The alternate reality here is the one where one person or group in a free society choosing not to pay for something someone else wants to do, is considered the same as denying that someone else access completely.

Have no fear. Women do not forget this sort of thing. Thanks, Republicans. You've made it just that much easier to get rid of you.

There should be no private insurance. It should be- OH MY GOD- government run! Then there would be no gnashing of teeth about who gets what.

There should be no gov't or employer provided insurance. It should be - OH MY GOD - completely private sector and individuals could select the coverage they want and can afford. Then there would be no gnashing of teeth about who gets what.

And those who can't afford- what, just toss them in the streets? Health care for the rich only? How disgusting

Take gov't and employer based insurance out of the picture and watch heath care/insurance become very affordable. I could buy coverage I prefer for myself (and I am not a young person) for about 1/3 the cost of my employer's plan.

It takes the simultaneously illogical and cynical world view of a liberal to leap to the conclusion that if gov't doesn't do it, it won't get done.

["Take gov't and employer based insurance out of the picture and watch heath care/insurance become very affordable."]

Oh please, that is the most naive load of crap I've seen all week. The reason the insurance costs keep going up is to make a profit despite pre-existing conditions. Your foolish nonsense idea wouldn't do anything about that problem except make it worse.

15.4 Cynical world view- liberals!!! Oh please. The system we have now is Capitalism run amok. There are so many people who can't even afford a pot to piss in let alone insurance. A cynical world view is the Republican one of dog-eat-dog and every man for himself. Some way to run a country!

"The reason the insurance costs keep going up is to make a profit despite pre-existing conditions."

Sorry but you posted the most naive load of crap I have seen in years. Healthcare costs in the US are out of control because of excess regulation, insane malpractice litigation, and the disconnect between the cost of healthcare and the people who use it.

RRDRRD:

"Take gov't and employer based insurance out of the picture and watch heath care/insurance become very affordable. I could buy coverage I prefer for myself (and I am not a young person) for about 1/3 the cost of my employer's plan."

Bullpucky. The reason we have employer based health coverage now is because it was not affordable to individual workers before. The best way to run health insurance is with the largest number of payees for the maximum distribution of risk. This is why countries with socialized medicine have universally better outcomes for a lower cost that we have here in the U.S.

15.7 Like I said Capitalism run amok.

The system we have is government run amok. If people cannot afford a pot to piss in, you need to look at the people who control the economy - the out of control multi-headed monster that taxes and redistributes wealth in the country. The government.

15.10 The people who control the economy are Wall Street Bankers. You see what a good job they have done. sarc

1) Wall Street does not control the economy. That is the fantasy that leftist politicians have fed you for years so you blame a body of people who are largely repugnant but actually do nothing more than feed off the economy, using the bizarre and byzantine regulations and tax codes dreamt up by politicians. Remoras don't bite your leg off, they just feed off the morsels that the shark dropped.

2) Artfulskeptic, you do not know US history. Employer based insurance exists in this country because of foolish government intervention in the private sector. The froze wages in WWII but allowed a loophole for untaxed benefits. Rather than just paying people what the market would bear, employers were forced to add layers of bureaucracy to hide what they actually paid their workers.

If employers paid their employees what they pay out for insurance, then workers could afford health insurance. My plan at work costs about $770 per month and I can buy similar coverage (slightly higher deductable - $1000 more per year) from the same carrier (BC/BS) for less than $300. I make up the difference in deductable in less than three months. You are being duped.

3) You also just gave newsblog903 competition for the most naive statement with "This is why countries with socialized medicine have universally better outcomes for a lower cost that we have here in the U.S" Almost all treatment outcomes for major diseases are superior in the US to those of the socialized systems. While most major western countries have marginally higher life expectancy figues, these are within the margin of error (you know that life expectancy numbers are estimates, don't you) and are probably overstated (a result of signifcant differences in recordkeeping standards, such as the tendency for the socialized countries to just not count dead infants if they are below a certain size or simply did not survive long enough).

If Wall Street doesn't directly control the economy it certainly does indirectly. If it is sooo benign than why the is the entire country in a huge economic mess? It is because of them and their gambling and shenanigans.

The issue is health care not money, money, money. That's all you Reps. ever think about. A healthy country is monetarily sound and well as humane. The Banks have ruined the economy and the Reps. are certainly not concerned with the well being of people. Capitalism run amok.

1) Straw man alert - I said wall street is largely repugnant, not benign.

2)"...why the is the entire country in a huge economic mess?" Freddie and Fannie come to mind right away, the so-called stimulus, the bailout of businesses that deserve to fail, huge government debt, the threat of a Obamacare, one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world,... sorry, don't have all day and the list is really long.

Well I'm sick of this argument as we will NEVER agree. It is a basic difference of philosophy. Republicans are only interested in money and exploiting whatever and whoever they can, including religion. They are essentially greedy and now that they are on the down side of every argument they becoming more and more petulant.

They used to be the Grand Old Party but now they are just whiny old curmudgeons.

Actually, you are the greedy one - you want people to give you things you cannot or will not earn on your own. As for being on the 'down side of every argument" that is not what the voters decided 2010 and I doubt if they will have changed their minds by November.

adios

Me personally? Don't personalize RRDRRD as you will be barking up the wrong tree. I pay my taxes and fair share not always gladly but I do it. And as for me personally, I have never taken a dime and I have earned every cent I've made.

If someone is in crisis or need by no fault of their own I am glad to help because it is my duty as a human being and a member of my society. Unlike Republicans I believe in helping bring people up not drag them down and ridicule those in need. Republicans have NO compassion.

Now RRDRRD you I can say with certainty are being petulant.

President Obamb 4 more years!

RRDRRD, I think you are sorely mistaken in your comparison of health plans. As a small businessman who offers coverage to his employees, I can tell you that the individual insurance market is at least as expensive as the small group insurance market, and significantly more than the large group market.

If you actually looked at the coverage in your company's health plan, you would find that it is much more comprehensive than the one being offered to you as an individual..unless...the individual policy requires no pre-existing conditions to qualify.

Long and short of it, I am reasonably certain that you're comparing apples to oranges. This is a very common problem, and is one of the major components of the Affordable Care Act - the exchanges will ensure that all consumers can do a complete comparison.

Finally, allow me to ask you - do you think it is a good idea to allow insurance companies to exclude people with pre-existing conditions? If so, then explain how someone who loses their insurance would acquire insurance in the future. If not, then tell me how you keep everybody in the system without some sort of mandate.

Bigbear - sorry to burst your bubble but I am the one who bought my employer's policy. It is an oranges to oranges comparison. As for pre-existing conditions, that is an interesting challenge in our current system (where people lose their coverage with their jobs) but one that would be of minor consideration under a better system.

It also sort of depends on how you define pre-existing conditions (cancer versus, say, obesity) but, basically, if we switch to a dependence on individuals voluntarily insuring themsleves and their families, the end result would be that the number of people losing their insurance would dramatically decrease. They might, by choice have less coverage but it would not disappear when you lose or even just change jobs.

By the way, a lot of good individual insurance plans are based on the insured joining a larger pool (such as an HMO) and still gets the benefit of ecnomies of scale. The reasons my policy could be as cheap as the quote i have for an individual policy are

1) the small business (9 employees) I run has a disproportionate number of older workers with chronic health problems. The $770we pay is a lot more than the IT firm accross the hall pays for essentially the same coverage

2) Although older myself, I am in very good physical condition and do not have a history of heavy medical service use.

3) The higher deductable I am willing to pay makes a huge difference to insurance companies. Chances are I will go years without making a claim against them. I actually got quotes because I plan to start my own business and don't want to be in the lurch when i make a change. My partners did the same and while they went with different plans (and this did not form a small group ourlselves) , they found the same thing. If you are willing to shop around and take a relatively small change in deductabe, the prices come down quickly.

newsblog - you are seriously out of touch withreality - liberals do not live up to their claims about caring for others

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

http://www.amazon.com/Makers-Takers-conservatives-generously-materialistic/dp/038551350X

Exactly

Two issues with what you said. Since the Insurance company will provide it 'free' then ALL premium payers will be subsidizing the Catholic Church employees, including the church itself (unless you are one of those that doesn't know that every company passes on all its costs to the consumer), and lastly and more importantly that the government can make any company provide free services to any group. How about we make Insurance companies provide free religious end-of-life counselling to all participants and demand that the Atheists and Agnostics pay for it. This is not about 'access' as no one has proposed preventing any women from using contraceptives (even Catholic women), this is about the right to a conscientious objection to paying for something their doctrine objects to.

right to a conscientious objection to paying for something their doctrine objects to.

A doctrine that no one follows!

This fight reminds me of history when HIV showed up in America among gay men. The church back then took the religious stance that it was god's punishment of the sinful - until it began decimating straight white men and women. My question is: if there is to be no contraception for women or men, what then will curb population growth? Studies are showing that more and more children are being diagnosed with autism of various stages. Who will take care of them as they grow up and will they be able to take care of an aging population? As the population grows - how will this nation handle resources? Especially water? As to jobs - we are having trouble keeping people employed now - how will future job markets fair? Since it seems that men want to control women's reproductive systems, then the men need to be accountable for the pregnancy and supply all needed necessities - even if they are married and got their mistresses pregnant. When people were expanding outward, colonizing and building a homestead where they could have some freedom to breathe, it did make sense to have as many children as possible to help on the farm, grow ideas, etc. (BTW, if anyone thinks about this model, this is the basic model of socialism - everyone works and everyone reaps the benefits - including those that could not work - the very young, the very old and the very sick). Today, this no longer makes sense, and in many ways speaks to quality of life vs. quantity of life. Fewer people being born now will allow for quality of life as there will be enough resources(natural and human) to go around while adding more people without prejudice will begin the slippery slope to quantity of life for 99% of the population. This long-term view is the one that should be considered and not over who should or should not pay for contraception. For indeed if people in the U.S.A. want to leave it up to God, then those same people do not have permission to be surprised or pissed off when resources run low, their quality of life begins to go down even more than they are now, or when disease begins to decimate the population. I suppose they are hoping that they will be in heaven before these symptoms develop.

@ Sara

Haha!! that's awesome and I totally agree!! Do you think I can get someone to pay for my oil changes, cel phone minutes and toothpaste if I whine hard enough?

If you can't afford out of pocket a $30 pkg of pills once a month because your insurance doesn't cover it and you aren't ready for children, do you really think the smart option is to just not use anything and go ahead and have a kid?

These liberals amaze me really they do....

that's awesome and I totally agree!! Do you think I can get someone to pay for my oil changes, cel phone minutes and toothpaste if I whine hard enough?

How interesting that you can compare your oil change and toothpaste with health care. Health care is a basic necessity for quality of life. Your cel phone is not.

Sara has a point and newsblog, you don't. Contraception is no more a necessity for "quality of life" than a cell phone or oil change. Lots of people cannot do their job without a cell phone or a working automobile and I think your dentist needs to have a talk with you if you don't think brushing your teeth is a health factor.

If you chose to use contraception, condoms are about 50 cents each and there are all kinds of orgnizations giving them out for nothing. No need to make Catholics pay for pills and devices that are not medically necessary.

Contraception comes under the heading of health care and for a lot of people it is a necessity. Hormonal therapy does more than just prevent pregnancy and it is necessary.

So the Catholic Church is above the fray is it? Well I don't think so being that so many Catholic women use birth control in defiance of the almighty Church. This is a double standard no matter how you slice it.

Food is a necessity, yet we expect the overwhelming majority of people in this country - especially those well employed enough to have health insurance - to buy their own. Your's is clearly an argument for a nanny state where no one has to be responsible for themselves. How pathetic.

As for Catholic women choosing to use contraception. Guess what, it is not my business and it is not your's either. It is an individual choice and as long as they don't expect others to unwillingly pay for that contraception, it is utterly irrelevant to the discussion.

Not a nanny state but a state that allows people to progress beyond mere survival. A state that allows people to reach their full potential. How pathetic that you consider everyone a free loader and are so ungenerous to your fellow man/woman. HOW PATHETIC to be out for yourself and everyone else be damned.

Contraception is the discussion. Don't you understand that the Reps. are using this issue. They don't give a hoot about contraception they are using religion as a tool to feather their nests. It will back fire soon enough.

Is RRD a troll?

No, the discussion is about paying for contraception and to pretend otherwise is disingenuous.

A state that allows people to progress beyond mere survival and reach their full potential is not the Orwellian state you clearly support.

As for for the rest of your post, see above - we conservatives are far more generous than liberals. How pathetic to be so misinformed and self-delusional.

trolling is the act of posting extraneous and off topic comments for inflamatory purposes. I am distinctly on topic and citing verifiable sources.

Now, if you have anything to say that adds to the subject, please do so. Otherwise go back under your bridge.

Just wait until they try to take the vote away from us! :(

An America where everyone is guaranteed equal outcome? No.

An America where "millionaires and billionaires" pay their fair share? Yes. DUH.

An America where Wall Street fatcats and bankers and CEOs are perped walked to prison for making too much money? For making too much money No, but for violating laws, Yes.

An America where any person can marry anyone or anything anytime anywhere? Not anything, but yes, any other consenting adult. It is Santorum who thinks about man-on-dog.

An America where women can choose to abort their child whenever it becomes an inconvenience? An America where a woman has full control of her own body, not a bunch of old fat white men.

Just what is your utopian America? Not one where we open the doors for more Enrons, Abramoffs, and Madoffs.

Does it include $5-a-gallon or more gasoline? No - energy independence.

Does it include the "new norm" of real double-digit unemployment? No, and we're not heading in that direciton.

Does it include dependency on food stamps and rent subsidies to survive? No, we're moving away from that too. Research and you'll find that Bushes I and II were the REAL food stamp Presidents.

Does it include confiscatory taxes on "millionaires and billionaires - ie, anyone who still makes money? No - FAIR taxes on all; not disproportionately lower taxes for the wealthy.

Does it include rationed health "care" - if you can even afford it or actually get it? That's such a red herring. If you can afford it, you can still choose where to get it. And the ACA helps ensure that you cannot be denied coverage that you need.

Because this is exactly the America we are getting under the Marxist policies of Barack Obama. Think things suck now? Just image what "four more years" can do to seal the deal to "fundamentally transform America". Oh, I didn't realize you were blogging under the name "truzak," Rush...

Exactly KJ thank you

Wow! You all sure told me.

Well, then, I stand corrected. I will be happy to know that when I'm putting $5-plus gas inn my car this year, we're really energy independent.

I'll be placated just knowing that even though my health care went up this year $110 per month, it really is cheaper because Obama said so.

I'll also be happy to know that when I'm old and decrepit and forced by the government onto Medicare rather than "keeping my own insurance and doctor if I like it", I won't have to worry about more hospitals, including Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, not accepting Medicare patients because the government pays out 50% of the actual cost. I know I'll be getting the same health care as Ted Kennedy - even though he was 80 years old with terminal brain cancer.

You all live in an alternate reality called the Obamanation. Unfortunately, economics operate in the real world. And as it's already becoming apparent, the reality does not match the myth.

When your future looks more like the futures of the former East Germans or Cubans or Venezuelans than what up until Obama has been historic American prosperity and opportunity, maybe you will wake up, connect the dots, and figure out what happened to you. Here's a clue - it wasn't Bush I or Bush II or any other Republican.

If you really prefer socialism with central-planning, five-year programs by an all-powerful uber-government who decides how much is fair for you to make and payback, how much "carbon" you should use, what kind of car you can drive, how much health care you get, then rejoice and be glad! You've got it! And you're about it get a lot more of it.

Congrats. Your side won - if that's what you call winning.

"up until Obama has been historic American prosperity and opportunity."

Wrong, dude. Remember where the stock market was in 2008? Hardly historic prosperity or opportunity, unless you were heavily into hedge funds and taking advantage of the country's dire circumstances. We have Bush to thank for that.

My employer's health care coverage didn't go up a single penny this year, and it's not a government plan. I can choose my providers just like before. You're on a bad plan and need to shop it. Oh, and you can also thank W for Medicare Part D.

When the government actually does dictate my income, what I drive, and my level of health care, and the sky actually falls as you predict, then I'll seek you out and congratulate you for being right (no pun intended). I'm pretty certain I'll never have to do that.

Haha. Good rebuttal - especially the pun. I enjoyed it. I think you're wrong, but I enjoyed it.

I hope you're right about not having to congratulate me regarding my admittedly "doom and gloom" outlook. But, if I can paraphrase General Patton, "Obama, you magnificent @#$%^&*, I read your books!"

Obama has made it pretty clear what he thinks of America and how he intends to "transform" it, for those with ears to hear. And it ain't good - as the last three years have proven.

And if you are going to make the argument the recession was worse than we imagined, it was deeper than we knew, whine, whine, whine, here's a clue.

In those states that followed Obama's model - higher taxes, stimulus spending; specifically, Illinois - the recession continues. Their budget deficit is $8 billion, and their unemployment is higher than the national average (9.8).

Infamously, neighboring Wisconsin took the opposite approach. Increased public unions contributions to pensions and health, cut spending, capped taxes. The result: A budget surplus, no teachers having to be laid off, school district budgets turning for red to black, and unemployment at 7.1.

Facts is facts. Socialism fails everywhere it is implemented. The US is no different. And Obama has proven to be no savior. Sorry.

So we agree to disagree. I disagree with your claim that we have higher taxes under Obama. I suppose you were only pointing to the 'model,' where Obama would increase taxes on the wealthy, thereby implying that he would raise taxes on everyone. I also disagree that the US is a socialist country. Sure, there are elements of socialism, but those were introduced long before Obama came to town - you know, things like a national military, interstate highway system, educational standards, clean air and water standards, Social Security, etc. Imagine how much better off we would be without those nasty socialist programs.

I'm not against capitalism; just unbridled capitalism. The circumstances that led to the Great Depression - lack of regulation, the ability for investors to borrow endlessly in order to buy stock without any ability to cover losses, etc. - are what we approached again, in spite of laws that arose from the Depression. Wall Street found new ways to get around those laws and in the process created the housing and credit bubbles that nearly brought us to our knees again. Obama is pulling us up out of that deep hole, in spite of the Republicans trying to pull him back down into it. Hard to be a savior when almost half the people are against being saved. See you in November!

Ok. I agree - to disagree. And as I said, I think your side already won as I am not convinced that whoever is elected in November can change the course the nation is on.

But I will defer to an adage an old boss of mine had - and I find it applies to most everything in life: "As much as necessary; as little as possible".

I think this is the same philosophy of the Founders - limited government, and it has a track record of serving the nation well considering more people became more successful and more prosperous than anywhere else on the planet. Why that needed fundamental transformation is beyond my mere mortal ability to discern.

This liberal knows that it is unethical and unprincipled to take money from the federal government and then claim you shouldn't be held to federal laws. If the Catholic church and it's hospitals and schools don't want to follow federal laws, fine. Just don't take any of my tax dollars from the government then.

Vivian. Nobody is making you use contraception. Nobody is making you change your religious beliefs. And if someone who works in your hospital or school doesn't follow your faith and uses birth control, that's none of your business either. Frankly, you should never have to worry about blood on your hands, because you should never even know about any one other individual's circumstances. If you're concerned about what your church is being forced to do, read my post @23.1 for the solution.

And stop calling names; that isn't a Christian thing to do.

24.1. Nobody is saying you can't use contraception, as you and your fellow libs are fond of arguing. Pay for it yourselves or find alternative means of paying for it, that's all. Why should a religious institution be forced to provide a "service" that goes against their teachings? They shouldn't be. You're right that it is none of my business (or anyone else's), if someone uses birth control or not. That is not what Republicans are saying. You say nobody is making us use contraception...true. But you would make people like Vivian and me pay for you taking yours when it goes against our religious beliefs. Why is this logic ok with you?

They're not being forced to provide services; they're obligated to provide coverage for employees who want those services, regardless of where the services are performed. There is a difference.

Where does it say you and Vivian are paying for anyone else's coverage? The church itself is exempt, so your donations to it are not paying for anyone's health insurance except for maybe the priests. The hospital, on the other hand, provides health care coverage for its employees out of hospital revenues, right? And any religious hospital with an imagination would work with an insurer to develop a cafeteria plan with contraception coverage as an optional benefit (and associated premiums). That way you and Viv are completely off the hook. Sound fair? This is not rocket science.

Poor choice of words on my part. They are not providing the actual services, but would be required to provide (pay for, at least partially) coverage that includes contraceptive services.

Aren't religiously affiliated or owned organizations such as Catholic hospitals subject to the same exemptions as the parent organization? Look, I'm not begrudging you or anyone else your right to do what you want with regards to your health care. And yes, I suppose hospitals could do what you suggest, which isn't a bad suggestion. My cafeteria plan includes optional services from AFLAC that I pay for. But these are options that my company voluntarily provides. No one is mandating that they provide this coverage. That is the problem, as I see it, with the policy direction from the White House. It would dictate that a religious organization include in their coverage services that they feel are contrary to church doctrine and/or sinful in nature. You don't have to agree with them to understand this point. These are deeply held beliefs to many people. Provide alternate means of coverage for these services that completely exonerate the religious organization from being associated with these services. Maybe a cafeteria plan as you describes fits the bill for some of these organizations, maybe not. Regardless, it shouldn't be forced on them. If this is a benefit important to an employee, then they can seek employment elsewhere, or come up with an alternate means of securing this type of coverage. Insurers can also work with organized groups to provide types of coverage. They don't just work with private employers. How about you form a group called "WACOs -- Women Against Contraceptive Obligations", sign a bunch of people up, and get group coverage for contraceptive services outside of your employer's plan? Genius!!

Vivian-- ever had to make the choice to take someone off life support? I have. Mother. Cancer. Coma. No chance of waking up ever. Please don't make snap conclusions about the lives of strangers.

And I thought birth control led to less unwanted pregnant gals which would, logically, mean less need for abortions, foster care for born unwanted children, state and government help when...or is this really about morality, morality, morality as it seems to be? I would think the pro-life crowd and the pro-choice crowd would be instantly on the same side-- as they both want less or no abortions and children that are wanted. [ No, the pro-choice crowd is not out there performing abortions on factory conveyer belts. ] Is it, this tempest that has escaped the teapot, about money or morals? People seem to be screaming about ' free ' birth control for slutty mcsluttersons and then screaming about religious freedoms... so I'm confused. Cause we, some of us, some Americans, get upset about a Muslim center at Ground Zero, yet, isn't that an infringement of religious freedom?

Absurdist argument but this whole contraception versus the Church seems to have descended into Theatre of Cruelty realms. Probably being all overly emotional and stuff, but hey, I AM a girl. Winkety-wink.

This may be too late for most to see, but Malhuerrivegirl makes several salient points. First, it's hard to speak realistically until you've been in a position of making life and death decisions for someone else. 5 months ago we had to let my father-in-law go after severe brain bleeding, and make the decision to watch as nature laid him to rest. That is so very different from watching on TV as a family you don't know struggles with their decisions.

The morality question is even bigger; how can one insist on requiring an unwilling mother give birth when the resulting child is certainly destined for a life of uncertainty, probable destitution, and almost certain dependence on federal funding for most if his or her life? Where is the morality in that when at the same time you insist upon reductions in entitlement spending? How can anyone who has not been in such a position (or even those who have been) make such a difficult decision for someone else? You may think it's easy, but that thought is based on your own beliefs, not those of the person in the circumstance.

On religious freedom - we are hearing some on the right scream about their religious freedoms, yet those same people are steadfastly against anyone who believes the Muslim faith. This is a faith that, despite what many Americans believe, is peaceful and tolerant. Only the extreme elements of that faith are anti-American. The point is that religious freedom - TRUE religious freedom - would accept Muslims' right to practice their faith, no matter how different.

Ultimately, you can only decide for yourself, and the only fair thing to do is to let other individuals decide for themselves. Let the Maker judge those decisions. I'm not a huge believer in the Bible because it was in fact written by humans. But even it says "Judge not, lest ye be judged."